Posted on 12/17/2013 9:37:27 AM PST by Heartlander
The debut at #7 on the New York Times best seller list last July of Stephen Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt is evidence that the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID) continues to gain momentum. Since critics often misrepresent ID, and paint ID advocates as a fanatical fringe group, it is important to understand what intelligent design is, and what it is not.
Until Charles Darwin, almost everyone everywhere believed in some form of intelligent design (the majority still do): not just Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but almost every tribesman in every remote corner of the world drew the obvious conclusion from observing animals and plants that there must have been a mind behind the creation of living things. Darwin thought he could explain all of this apparent design through natural selection of random variations. In spite of the fact that there is no direct evidence that natural selection can explain anything other than very minor adaptations, his theory has gained widespread popularity in the scientific world, simply because no one can come up with a more plausible theory to explain evolution, other than intelligent design, which is dismissed by most scientists as “unscientific.”
But, in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s implausible theory has continued to weaken, and since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life other than intelligent design.
But what exactly, do these “ID scientists” believe? There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most, but not quite all, accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups. Many, including Behe, accept common descent. Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the complexity of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents. So what exactly do ID proponents believe?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to state clearly what you have to believe in order not to believe in intelligent design. Peter Urone, in his 2001 physics text College Physics writes, “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.” The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. This is what you have to believe to not believe in intelligent design, that the origin and evolution of life, and the evolution of human consciousness and intelligence, are due entirely to a few unintelligent forces of physics. Thus you must believe that a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the fundamental particles of physics into computers and science texts and jet airplanes.
Contrary to popular belief, to be an ID proponent you do not have to believe that all species were created simultaneously a few thousand years ago, or that humans are unrelated to earlier primates, or that natural selection cannot cause bacteria to develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you believe that a few fundamental, unintelligent forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics into Apple iPhones, you are probably not an ID proponent, even if you believe in God. But if you believe there must have been more than unintelligent forces at work somewhere, somehow, in the whole process: congratulations, you are one of us after all!
This article also appeared in the El Paso Times. For more of Dr. Sewell’s writings on evolution and intelligent design, see his 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution.”
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
Stephen C. Meyer is a genius who has the great gift of explaining complexity simply. I love the guy. Bob
Very good topic! One of my hobbies is reading scientific books on physics, biology, and life in general. Almost to a fault most University-trained authors go out of their way to prove that this marvelously complex universe came about solely by chance. I wonder how these erstwhile brilliant high IQ scientists can totally dismiss the possibility of an intelligence behind everything that exists.
Wow, you mean common sense is actually invading the realm of the “intellectuals”? That may be even a bigger wonder than creation itself.
The other fun argument is to discuss that in order to believe that the universe evolved from nothing you have to suspend your belief... Supported by the natural science of physics... That now effect can be greater than its cause.
Particularly fun as it appears that the other side of the argument is that psysics is responsible for everything... Except the one thing Darwinists need it to explain.
The problem is just scientific. It is theological. If there is an “intelligent designer” then it stands to reason that this designer might expect something from his creation, such as a certain moral code.
Somebody showed up one day and did miraculous acts and claimed to be that designer’s “Son” and made many statements on behalf of the designer that was both amazing in their wisdom and difficult to fathom. He claimed he would be killed and then come back to life. He was indeed murdered by the state and by the religious leaders of his day.
Then he was seen alive the following Sunday and many days thereafter. Yet, to believe this also means that his statements should be believed and followed also. So, rather than confront this, a segment of the scientist community tries to use whatever evidence is at their disposal to claim such a designer doesn’t exist at all.
Their hollow theories now dominate the education realm because to admit there might be a designer might cause some to also believe in this son.
Such a conundrum!
I was reading about the “goldilocks” parameters. There are almost 100 parameters that must be met within a fraction of a percentage before life can exist. ala the earth has to be a certain size, a certain distance from a certain-sized sun. The moon must be exactly right in size and orbit. The gas giants like Jupiter have to suck up the asteroids. The solar system has to be an exact distance from the black hole center of milky way. , etc. etc. It is even possible that all of these parameters cannot be met in our universe. Thus the anti god people have to say that they are infinite universes and we just happen to live in a habitable spot in this universe. My faith is too weak to accept this. I instead believe in an infinite Creator who calls Himself “I Am”.
See below. The Intelligent Design, i.e., God’s Plan, is in the G4 dimensions
Notes on Heim’s Quantum Theory
Gary V Stephenson
Seculine Consulting
Sept 2, 2004
Rev A, Jan 8, 2006
ABSTRACT
A brief on Heim’s Quantum Theory is presented.
INTRODUCTION
A recent translation of Heim’s unified field theory, known as Heim’s Quantum Theory (HQT), in a 2004 AIAA paper by Droscher and Hauser has renewed interest in the work of Dr Heim. Dr Burkhard Heim is now deceased but in the 1950’s developed an exhaustive unified field theory based on the metric quantization of space-time that includes 12 dimensions and 6 fundamental forces, 3 of which taken together form what is collectively known as gravity. It is this latter feature of HQT that has raised immediate interest, but Heim’s theory has many other features that, should it ever be tested as valid, offer potential insights that could be even more surprising. A summary of the highlights of HQT are presented in the following notes.
THE 12 DIMENSIONS OF HQT
It is obvious to anyone that has experimented with basic static electricity or magnetic fields that a description of physical reality as a 4-Dimensional (4D) universe is incomplete. A 4D metric can at best be used to represent mechanical motion in a universe occupied by only one force - gravity. The discovery of the existence of other forces, including EM, Weak, and Strong forces require additional dimensions.
In Heim’s work, which predates string theory, Einstein’s general relativity has been extended in a way that expands the space-time metric by 4 dimensions, and also adds 4 non-metric dimensions. A brief summary of Heim’s dimensions follow.
ST4
The ST4 dimensions represent those that are classically known as the spacetime metric. These can be decomposed as follows:
R3 = {x, y ,z} = {x1, x2, x3} = Spatial Dimensions
T1 = {t} = {x4} = Time Dimension
SI4
The SI4 dimensions consist of what Heim has termed “structure” dimensions and “information” dimensions. While the meaning of these dimensions is not literally identical to their names, there are a number of parallels. Among other functions, these dimensions function to describe attraction and repulsion in the universe. They are also metric dimensions in that they affect motion. These dimensions are unique to Heim’s formulation. The SI4 dimensions may be decomposed as follows:
S2 = {x5, x6} = Structure Dimensions
I2 = {x7, x8} = Information Dimensions
G4
The last 4 dimensions in Heim’s UFT are the “event steering” dimensions. These dimensions may be understood as defining probability amplitudes across the other dimensions. They may be denoted as follows:
G4 = {x9, x10, x11, x12} = Event Steering Dimensions
Listed among the properties of these dimensions are the following Hermetry and Symmetry forms:
Hermetry Form: H5(T1, S2, I2) represents the flow of events.
Symmetry Form: S2 x I2 = 0 represents a kind of Ying/ Yang balance.
The symmetry form, for example, requires that the energy extracted from the vacuum during virtual particle pair production must equal zero.
HEIM’S 6 FUNDAMENTAL FORCES
Heim’s UFT also includes 6 fundamental forces, 3 of which are known and 3 of which are components of gravity. The three known forces are:
1) EM (Electromagnetic) - propagated by the Photon
2) Weak Force - propagated by the Higgs boson
3) Strong Force - propagated by the Gluon
The 3 gravitational forces are as follows:
4) Gg (Scalar Gravity, or “Gravitonic”) - propagated by the Graviton
5) Ggp (Dark Energy/Matter) - propagated by the Gravito-photon
6) Gq (Vacuum Field) - propagated by the Quintessence particle
Standard gravity G is the tensor summation of all three gravitational components, i.e. G = Gg + Ggp + Gq
In terms of relative strength, Gg is much larger than the other components. The following ratios apply to their relative strength:
Gravito-Photonic Gravity Ggp = 1/(67)^2 Gg = [2.23(10)^-4]*Gg
Quint-Essenic Gravity Gq = [4(10)^-18]*Gg
PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are implications to both science and the humanities if Heim’s theory is to be considered in its entirety.
Physical / Metric Dimensions - include “structure” and “information” dimensions
- may resolve issues with entropy / thermodynamics
Symmetry breaking dimensions may make explicit the operation of free will in the universe
- may resolve issues with the “measurement problem”
Dimensions in which we can travel, dimensions in which we can communicate information, and dimensions in which we can exercise our free choice, are all described by Heim’s theory.
CONCLUSIONS (Rev A)
• Unparalleled in breath and scope – unifies science and philosophy
• Unknown how it relates to other leading UFTs –ties to the current physical theories (such as the standard model and quantum loop gravity) requires development
• Testability – Rev A: testability is described in a later 2005 AIAA paper, and may be testable at Sandia with their “Z-machine.”
reason (science) itself being a gift of God to man, it was inevitable that the “theory” of macro evolution as the cause for “the origin of species” would be falsified.
bkmk
Ping!
When I look at the universe macroscopically, the thought of a god creating it seems asinine. When I look at the universe microscopically, especially the billions of tiny things that must go right all the time to even keep a living being alive, not to even start contemplation on how carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen can be conscious and think, I find it impossible to believe there is not a god. However, I am far from happy with the explanation that since life is so incomprehensibly complicated that it could not exist on its own, that therefore something infinitely more complicated must have created it. As I get a little older, and I ponder some of the “mind altering” quests of my youth, I am beginning to believe that the universe may not quite be what we perceive it to be. Time, and distance, and perception can be too easily altered by micro-grams. For that matter life and all of those billions of unrelated processes that must work in concert to keep an organism alive can be too easily distinguished by micro-grams. I don’t think scales of atomic versus galactic are as far apart as we perceive.
I always laugh....Darwin only dreamed up an explanation of what he gathered. in other words...he started with his end game. but seems he forgot about everything else in the universe.
Could you recommend a link to an article by him i could read?
I know you did not ask me, but I will offer this because I share his admiration for Meyer. If you are unable to secure his two absolutely killer books, Signature in the Cell or Darwin’s Doubt, the check Youtube for Stephen Meyer Intelligent Design. Especially the 2011 London lecture. The fellow is so very careful to explain the evidence without the emotional excess of most theists that your jaw will drop. The atheistic religion is beginning to crumble...
Thanks. I just want an article I can read now.
Darwin was a geologist and naturalist and didn’t even attempt to explain ‘the universe’, it wasn’t his field of expertise. He didn’t forget it.
That he dreamed it up first, and then tried to find scientific explanations for that dream, that charge fits better for those in the ID community by any objective standard.
Sorry, I don't know of just a printed article. You should be aware that the topics Meyer undertakes are so involved, that they take perhaps a hundred pages in his books to develop. He is not about sound bites or bullet points. He is about the detailed demands of specified information transfer within cells and fossil evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.